The Pat McQuaid File Why Cycling Ireland Members should reject his nomination for UCI President 31 May 2013 Statement Regarding Cycling Ireland’s EGM of 15th June 2013: Concerning the nomination of Mr. Pat McQuaid for election as President of the UCI for a third term, six Cycling Ireland members release their rationale for a No vote. 31 May 2013 We are six cyclists embedded in the Irish cycling scene with a deep passion for the sport. Our strong commitment to cycling has been expressed over decades through various means. Our frustration with those at the top of the UCI led us to each other. We first united to persuade the Board of Cycling Ireland (CI) to put the nomination of Pat McQuaid for a third term as UCI President to the members of CI at an EGM, which Cycling Ireland respectfully agreed to. On the 15th of June, Cycling Ireland Club Delegates will have the opportunity to vote on whether the Irish cycling federation should endorse Pat McQuaid’s nomination for President in the upcoming UCI elections. Having succeeded with our initial objective, we felt obliged to state arguments against Pat McQuaid’s nomination. The document that follows outlines why we believe members should vote No at the Cycling Ireland EGM. Pat McQuaid has been on the UCI Management Committee since 1998. He was elected President of the world governing body in 2005. Over the course of his two terms as President, we believe there have been huge issues with regards to Governance and Doping in cycling. In addition, it is our opinion that the UCI has engaged in mission creep regarding the Globalisation of the sport. We believe the conflict of interest between anti-doping and promotion of the sport has never been addressed. Anti-doping measures appear to be introduced on the back of yet another crisis. We find it regrettable that the UCI comes across as reactionary, not pro-active in the fight against doping. We think that the UCI’s anti-doping efforts have been too narrowly focused on riders as opposed to managers, teams and doctors. What’s more, it is our belief that the UCI is reluctant to pursue global stars who become the key asset in its globalisation strategy. It is our view that this sends a bad message to young cyclists considering whether to dope or not. The UCI’s actions have resulted in short term commercial gains, however, these gains appear quickly lost in the destructive aftermath of doping scandals. We believe the UCI’s public feuding with Anti-Doping agencies such as WADA and USADA cast it in a terrible light. The UCI appears to lack leadership. Without strong leadership we feel there is little opportunity for the sport to progress. These issues are not as long in the past as Pat McQuaid would have us believe. In the last five years we have seen the UCI provide Contador with the reason for his positive test, provide exemptions on testing periods for Lance Armstrong, sue people who speak out for the sport and fight unsuccessfully to obtain jurisdiction of USADA’s investigation into the US Postal Team. Added to this, is the failure in our view of the much trumpeted Biological Passport to spot any erroneous blood values on Armstrong’s return - despite the USADA report claiming that there was a one-in-a-million chance his values were 2 natural. In 2013, one can’t help but ask the obvious question, how many other riders have sailed through the UCI’s anti-doping net? For all the apparent failures contained herein there appears to be no accountability for those at the top of the UCI. Any UCI reviews have been heavily criticised publicly for narrow terms of reference and for lack of independence. The UCI’s promised review into issues raised by the USADA Reasoned Decision report has still not happened although seven months have now lapsed. We believe that extending Pat McQuaids tenure as President will only lead to a continuance of policies of the past. We expect this to result in more of the same – an unaccountable President who seems unable to provide the sport with the credibility we believe it sorely lacks. We would love to have an Irishman as President of the UCI that makes us proud. Unfortunately, Pat McQuaid does not, although he has had every opportunity over the last eight years as President to impress us. Pat McQuaid’s clumsy communication and his confrontational style seem to bring the sport and the UCI into disrepute repeatedly. We believe Pat McQuaid’s own actions have increased the public’s cynicism of cycling. We feel it is McQuaid’s own fault that he is seen to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. In our opinion Pat McQuaid’s Presidency has long ago become untenable. Cycling Ireland’s EGM provides Irish cyclists with the opportunity to state any dissatisfaction they may have with Pat McQuaid’s political style, a style that is outdated in our view. It is time for Pat McQuaid to be held accountable for his record as President of the UCI. We believe his record is poor and that voting No in the Cycling Ireland EGM is the only way to move the sport of cycling forward and to break with the past. We appreciate your consideration of our arguments that follow. Yours in Cycling. Anthony Moran UCI Code: IRL 19651019 Email: [email protected] Dr. Conor McGrane UCI Code: IRL19701214 Email: [email protected] Paul Atkinson UCI Code: GBR19601020 Email: [email protected] Mark Gill UCI: IRL19770711 Email: [email protected] Dr. Cillian Kelly UCI Code: IRL19841025 Email: [email protected] Kieran Keane UCI Code: IRL19750512 Email: [email protected] 3 Contents Executive Summary 5 Governance 8 General Concerns regarding the UCI’s overall responsibilities 8 Concerns Specific to Pat McQuaid throughout his tenure 8 Jurisdictional Battle with USADA 9 Abandonment of Independent Commission 10 Treatment of Whistleblowers 10 UCI’s Involvement in Star Riders’ Doping Affairs 14 Anti-Doping and the Biological Passport 17 Failure to Lead 17 A Reactionary Response - The Bio-Passport in Context 18 Bernard Kohl Revelations 19 Michael Ashenden’s Frustrations 19 Failure to Flag Lance Armstrong 20 Anti-Doping Agencies Remain Critical of the UCI’s Efforts 21 Pat McQuaid Denies Failures and Pleads Ignorance 22 Globalisation and Cycling’s Boom 24 Globalisation 24 Apparent Abuse of Power 26 Promotion vs Regulation 26 Market Grab 27 Putting the Cart Before the Horse 27 Damaging the Brand 28 Dearth of Sponsors 28 Faulty Development Strategy 29 GCP - Distracting and Costly 29 Conclusions 31 4 Executive Summary Governance It is our view that professional road cycling and the UCI as an institution have lost credibility. People who run a sport should accept some responsibility for what happens under their watch. In the case of cycling the buck stops firmly at the door of the UCI. Pat McQuaid has held senior positions within the UCI for the past 15 years – the last eight of them as its President. This period represents a nadir for the sport with a constant stream of doping scandals. We believe the UCI has lost the confidence of the sport’s stakeholders. These include riders, teams, sponsors, TV companies and fans throughout the world. Pat McQuaid seems to be constantly surrounded by controversy. It is our view that his clumsy discourse and poorly thought through actions are inappropriate for the leader of a global sport. Pat McQuaid himself has admitted that the sport has lost credibility under his watch. The UCI appeared to meddle in the 2010 clenbuterol positive of Alberto Contador. In our view this straightforward doping case dragged the UCI through the mud in public for months. Ultimately CAS, not the UCI, had to bring the sorry saga to its conclusion. The UCI also involved itself in the affairs of Lance Armstrong. It accepted a back-dated prescription for a corticosteroid positive during the 1999 Tour de France, it took no interest in the mounting evidence that Lance Armstrong had doped, it allowed him to return to competition following his retirement before the necessary six months had lapsed and it attempted to wrest control of the USADA case just when it seemed the truth about Lance Armstrong might come out. So desperate did the UCI actions seem, that Travis Tygart stated: “At every turn, the UCI attempted to obstruct our efforts to reveal the truth,”1 Anti-doping efforts and the blood passport It is our belief that the UCI has not prioritised Anti-Doping enough. The introduction of new testing protocols represents only part of the picture. It is our belief that the apparent new era is as a result of leadership from teams and sponsors. We do not believe that the UCI is responsible for any cultural shift within the sport because it is not obvious to us that such a shift has happened at the top of the UCI. There remain questions over the much trumpeted biological passport with delays in its introduction, a rider explaining how it is helpful to dopers, a lack of funding which resulted in reduced testing (the UCI seemed to be able to tap the World Tour Solidarity and Reserve Fund at the time to soft-fund its loss-making races in China). Anti-doping and Blood Passport expert Dr. Michael Ashenden has also voiced his frustration with the UCI after it sought to gag Biological Passport panel members for eight years. It also appears that it failed to catch Armstrong after his return to competition.